Jump to content

Talk:Husbands and Knives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source?

[edit]

This article does not cite its sources. I am interested in the Alan Moore guest spot, though.

It's been sourced. Also, was this epsiode originally part of season 18? 71.127.212.40 00:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't, people just assumed that it was part of season 18. -- Scorpion0422 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The refernce in Alan Moore tells you more about his guest spot (even though it thinks that "Constantine" was the name of a comic book): [1]. —Toby Bartels 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A citation request has been made in regards to Art Spiegelman's mask, however the source is stated in the article: Maus. Since the source is his book, which is mentioned, need it be cited too? Destroda (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What’s New, Pussycat? ending credits

[edit]

Did anyone catch the ending credits? Anyone know who sang the Korean version of "What’s New, Pussycat?"? 75.18.118.67 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was Korean? And I think it was Jack Black. -- Scorpion0422 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in Korean. Even in the episode it talks about Korean covers of Tom Jones' songs.75.18.118.67 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references

[edit]

Numerous lines from the cultural references section are being removed due to lack of citation/sourcing. While it may be a Wikipedia policy to source claims, it is simply not possible in this case, and the reasons why I believe that it's not needed:

  • The references are crystal clear, and anybody can relate that they are true
  • Because everything just can't be sourced, and that shouldn't mean deletion of content

Regards, Tuntis (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

obviously you didn't read what i linked you, otherwise you would understand Ctjf83 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
obviously you're not willing to co-operate Tuntis (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who is right, per wiki verification policy, which you won't take the time to read, because you are being stubborn Ctjf83 17:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm the one who is right" already verifies my claim :) Tuntis (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, take a break, have a cup of tea and stop the name-calling - It's not very productive. WP:V does in fact require all challenged material to be sourced. henrik•talk 17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I'm here from WP:3O per Tunis' request here. I've reviewed the discussion above as well as relevant policy and have the following comments to make:

Ctjf83 and henrik are correct. Per Wikipedia's guidelines to verifiability, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (empasis in the original). Although even without a citation most reasonable people would indeed be able to see that, for example, Husbands and Knives is a play on Husbands and Wives, the fact is that putting this into the article without a third-party citation qualifies as a synthesis of two apparent facts, which is prohibited as original research.

With regard to the larger question of inclusion, neither the manual of style nor the Simpsons article style guide explicitely allow cultural references or other trivia sections; in fact, trivia lists are generally discouraged on Wikipedia (see WP:TRIVIA for the manual of style's position).

That being said, the fact is that lists of cultural references do indeed appear on Wikipedia. Some prominent examples include (in addition to nearly every other Simpsons/Futurama/Family Guy/etc. episode article) List of cultural references in The Cantos and Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye. In fact, the phenomenon is so widespread that it could be interpreted as constituting de facto consensus on the use of these lists despite the fact that they are discouraged per the guidelines cited above.

So my suggestion? Other than chilling out and cutting down on the name-calling, I suggest that the lines removed remain removed and that the existing lines be tagged with {{fact}} templates to indicate a lack of in-line citation. While I don't think these cultural references are doing any harm by being here, Wikipedia guidelines and policies are fairly clear on the matter. Although my suggestion on removal of content extends to other items removed in the future, I suggest that both parties refrain from blanket removal/restoration of content and strive to be a bit more harmonious in dealing with this matter. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 01:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently deleted cultural reference

[edit]

Hello, I would like some clarification on why a certain cultural reference was deleted. I know there have been many discussion about what to include, but I am going to put another one out there. The following was recently deleted-

  • The out of business poster that Comic Book Guy hangs in his window, is a parody of the cover of The Amazing Spider-Man issue #50: "Spider-Man No More".

There have been a lot of talk about "references" and "mentions", an I don't know if that had anything to do with it. The issue of sources have also come up, but there are a lot more CR with no sources that are still there. The parody really is obvious. I know that is not a good means for it to be kept, but if there was any confusion whether it really was a reference to that, it is, the resemblance is uncanny. I know it sounds like I am making a big deal out of it, but if someone could say why it was deleted it would be great. 76.189.120.48 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How are obvious popular cultural references that cannot be sourced any less relevant than equally unsourced references like in "Funeral For a Fiend" where it's perfectly OK to mention how the Krusty-piano-bit is like the Elton John/Diana-thing? AFAIK, no producer, writer or actor has publicly said "Well, it's a parody of the Elton John/Diana-thing!", yet it counts as "sourced". Is it sourced if it's just really well known and easy for people to grasp? How come other things like the "Oprah = Opal = Opal is gay = Oprah is gay"-reference was removed as "unsourced" when it's just as "sourced", only fewer people know about the whole "Oprah is gay"-thing? You can't call unsourced stuff sourced just because it's more well known. If equally obvious yet less well-known cultural references are removed because they're unsourced, well, there goes 90% of ALL Cultural Reference sections! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs)
There's a bit of a difference between adding a title which is an obvious allusion, and adding rumours that someone is gay. And unsourced cultural references sections are discouraged by policy, so we try to limit these sections to a few refs. -- Scorpion0422 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DC Comics Vs. Marvel

[edit]

Don't know if this is even worth mentioning, but I noticed that they had the DC logo and used the real names of the DC super heroes like Superman, Batman, Aquaman etc.

But in a later segment they had the Marvel Characters Hulk & Thing as Mulk & Thung.

Interesting.. but they did explicitly show Wolverine earlier. Does it have to do with whether or not a hero has a movie in the near past/future, or do they just use/not-use trademarked names at random?
When Stan Lee cameoed, real Marvel names were used. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity?

[edit]

What is the status of Milo and Coolsville after the episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaizenyorii (talk • contribs) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episode seems somewhat notable for failing to "reset" the status of Springfield by the end of the episode. Comic Book Guy's store apparently remains closed, while Marge is still the rich and famous owner and operator of a nationally successful chain of gyms. Should this be mentioned in the article? --DavidK93 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it all goes back to normal. Things like this have happened before. I think it was even joked about in one episode. Rhino131 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image

[edit]

All of the images in this article relate more to the comic book store portion of the plot. I think the lead image should be more about the gym than the store here. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Husbands and Knives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Husbands and Knives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Husbands and Knives. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Husbands_and_Knives&oldid=1207675670"